DONALD L. CORBIN, Justice.
Appellant E-Z Cash Advance, Inc., appeals your order of this Pulaski County Circuit Court doubting its movement to compel arbitration. For reversal, E-Z Cash contends that a agreement finalized by Appellee Deborah Harris included a legitimate arbitration clause, hence preventing her from filing suit in circuit court. We disagree, and therefore, affirm.
This appeal is due to a payday money center locations dispute about the legality of specific loan deals E-Z that is involving Cash Harris. E-Z money is really a company this is certainly within the company of supplying cash loans to people who provide individual checks which are held before the debtor’s next payday. These deals are generally named “payday loans.” In June 2000, Harris provided E-Z money with a individual sign in the amount of $400 it consented to hold until Harris’s next payday. Harris ended up being expected to come back to E-Z money to either redeem the mortgage for the complete face quantity for the check or even to restore the mortgage. She made a decision to renew the mortgage by paying the attention and presenting a fresh check *438 when it comes to initial level of the money received, plus an extra solution cost for the extended term. Within the deal, Harris finalized an “Arkansas Deferred Presentment Agreement,” saying that there was clearly a check cashing charge of $40, in addition to a ten dollars deferred presentment charge. This kind additionally claimed that the $50 constituted a finance cost, having a apr of 372.4 per cent. Thereafter, Harris received $350 in money. Harris proceeded this arrangement with E-Z money until 3, 2000 august.
After Harris encountered problems repaying the attention due on her behalf loans, she filed suit, separately as well as on behalf of likewise situated individuals, against E-Z Cash. Inside her issue, Harris alleged that E-Z money violated Article 19, В§ 13, associated with the Arkansas Constitution by asking fascination with a quantity surpassing the most allowable rate. Particularly, Harris averred that the “solution fee” imposed by E-Z Cash amounts to interest, once the term can be used in part 13, additionally the yearly interest levels vary anywhere from 300 to 720 per cent, hence breaking Arkansas’s constitutional prohibition against usury. Harris asked for that she be appointed as a representative associated with the course and prayed for judgment in a quantity add up to twice the attention compensated by each known member of the course, expenses, and lawyer’s fees. Harris additionally asked for that the court declare the agreements at problem null and void.
E-Z Cash reacted by having a movement to dismiss Harris’s suit on a lawn that Harris finalized a legitimate arbitration contract and had been hence banned from bringing suit in circuit court. In her own reaction to the motion to dismiss, Harris contended that the circuit court should stick to the reasoning of other jurisdictions which have refused to compel arbitration, especially in circumstances involving loan that is payday where in fact the underlying loan deals are unlawful or unenforceable. E-Z Cash then filed a movement to compel arbitration. Harris reacted that the agreements are void ab initio and are consequently invalid, and thus, a void agreement may possibly not be arbitrated.
The test court held a hearing regarding the movement to compel. No witnesses testified, but solicitors representing both parties presented their arguments towards the court. The test court orally denied the movement to compel, saying from the work bench:
I have surely got to deny it, needless to say. After all i have see the agreement and it is just like an adhesion clause. Plus, there is, needless to say, comparable situations with this.
This can be an one-sided agreement in reference to arbitration. I do not see any kind of method to see clearly. There is no responsibility on the part of check cashiers to complete certainly not sue them.
In its written purchase, filed 25, 2001, the trial court denied the motion to compel, as well as the motion to dismiss, because the arbitration clause was contained in an adhesion contract, was one-sided, and unfair january. The court further unearthed that the contract lacked mutuality, and ended up being consequently unenforceable against Harris. From that ruling, comes the appeal that is instant.